plastic_number

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the exact value returned, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral traits like computational complexity, precision limits, or error handling. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise and well-structured in a single sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get the plastic number'), provides the value and mathematical definition, and adds relevant context (domain/category) without unnecessary elaboration. Every part earns its place, making it efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool returns but does not cover output format (e.g., numeric precision, data type) or potential usage constraints. For a constant-fetching tool, it's minimally viable but could be more complete by addressing these aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools, as it adds value by explaining what is returned without redundant parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the plastic number ρ ≈ 1.32472.' It specifies the exact mathematical constant returned, distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning its unique properties (real root of x³ = x + 1, relation to Padovan sequence), and includes domain/category context. This goes beyond a tautology and provides specific, differentiating information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions the plastic number's mathematical properties, it does not indicate scenarios where this constant is needed over other constants (like golden_ratio or pi) available in sibling tools. There is no explicit when/when-not usage advice or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.